PEPDar: A randomized prospective noninferiority study of ritonavir-boosted darunavir for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis

Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV - CDC Recommendations, United States, 2025

Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for HIV is recommended when a nonoccupational (e.g., sexual, needle, or other) exposure to nonintact skin or mucous membranes that presents a substantial risk for HIV transmission has occurred, and the source has HIV without sustained viral suppression or their viral suppression information is not known. A rapid HIV test (also referred to as point-of-care) or laboratory-based antigen/antibody combination HIV test is recommended before nPEP initiation. Health care professionals should ensure the first dose of nPEP is provided as soon as possible, and ideally within 24 hours, but no later than 72 hours after exposure. The initial nPEP dose should not be delayed due to pending results of any laboratory-based testing, and the recommended length of nPEP course is 28 days. The recommendations in these guidelines update the 2016 nPEP guidelines (CDC. Updated guidelines for antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV - United States, 2016. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2017). These 2025 nPEP guidelines update recommendations and considerations for use of HIV nPEP in the United States to include newer antiretroviral (ARV) agents, updated nPEP indication considerations, and emerging nPEP implementation strategies. The guidelines also include considerations for testing and nPEP regimens for persons exposed who have received long-acting injectable ARVs in the past. Lastly, testing recommendations for persons who experienced sexual assault were updated to align with the most recent CDC sexually transmitted infection treatment guidelines. These guidelines are divided into two sections: Recommendations and CDC Guidance. The preferred regimens for most adults and adolescents are now bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide or dolutegravir plus (tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) plus (emtricitabine or lamivudine). However, the regimen can be tailored to the clinical circumstances. Medical follow-up for persons prescribed nPEP also should be tailored to the clinical situation; recommended follow-up includes a visit at 24 hours (remote or in person) with a medical provider, and clinical follow-up 4-6 weeks and 12 weeks after exposure for laboratory testing. Persons initiating nPEP should be informed that pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP) can reduce their risk for acquiring HIV if they will have repeat or continuing exposure to HIV after the end of the nPEP course. Health care professionals should offer PrEP options to persons with ongoing indications for PrEP and create an nPEP-to-PrEP transition plan for persons who accept PrEP.

Post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV: new drugs, new approaches, and more questions

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV acquisition has been recommended for over three decades, but remains underutilised. Over the past decade, clinical trials have established the safety and tolerability of newer PEP regimens, particularly those containing integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) combined with a tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine backbone. Several of these regimens were better tolerated than historical controls. Studies in macaques found that shorter courses of PEP with INSTIs were effective, particularly if dosing occurred close to the time of retroviral exposure. Despite the increase in well tolerated options, PEP seems to be underused globally and links to other prevention services are suboptimal. Interventions to increase provider and community awareness of PEP are needed.

UK guideline for the use of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis 2021

We present the updated British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) guidelines for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to HIV following sexual exposures, occupational exposures and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. This serves as an update to the 2015 BASHH guideline on PEP following sexual exposures and the 2008 Expert Advisory Group on AIDS guidelines on HIV PEP. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on best clinical practice in the provision, monitoring and support of PEP for the prevention of HIV acquisition following sexual, occupational and other nonoccupational exposures in the community. The guideline covers when to prescribe PEP, what antiretroviral agents to use and how to manage PEP. This includes (i) evidence of PEP efficacy; (ii) evidence relating to individual-level efficacy of antiretroviral therapy to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV; (iii) data on the detectable (transmissible) prevalence of HIV in specific populations; (iv) risk of HIV transmission following different types of sexual and occupational exposure; (v) baseline risk assessment; (vi) drug regimens and dosing schedules; (vii) monitoring PEP; (viii) baseline and follow-up blood-borne virus testing; (ix) the role of PEP within broader HIV prevention strategies, for example, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The guideline also covers special scenarios such as PEP in pregnancy, breastfeeding and chronic hepatitis B virus infection, and when PEP should be considered in people using HIV PrEP. The guidelines are aimed at clinical professionals directly involved in PEP provision and other stakeholders in the field. A proforma to assist PEP consultations is included. A public consultation process was undertaken prior to finalizing the recommendations.

Post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases (CORIPREV): study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a well-established strategy for the prevention of infectious diseases, in which recently exposed people take a short course of medication to prevent infection. The primary objective of the COVID-19 Ring-based Prevention Trial with lopinavir/ritonavir (CORIPREV-LR) is to evaluate the efficacy of a 14-day course of oral lopinavir/ritonavir as PEP against COVID-19 among individuals with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed case.

METHODS

This is an open-label, multicenter, 1:1 cluster-randomized trial of LPV/r 800/200 mg twice daily for 14 days (intervention arm) versus no intervention (control arm), using an adaptive approach to sample size calculation. Participants will be individuals aged > 6 months with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case within the past 7 days. A combination of remote and in-person study visits at days 1, 7, 14, 35, and 90 includes comprehensive epidemiological, clinical, microbiologic, and serologic sampling. The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days after exposure, defined as a positive respiratory tract specimen for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction. Secondary outcomes include safety, symptomatic COVID-19, seropositivity, hospitalization, respiratory failure requiring ventilator support, mortality, psychological impact, and health-related quality of life. Additional analyses will examine the impact of LPV/r on these outcomes in the subset of participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. To detect a relative risk reduction of 40% with 80% power at α = 0.05, assuming the secondary attack rate in ring members (p0) = 15%, 5 contacts per case and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.05, we require 110 clusters per arm, or 220 clusters overall and approximately 1220 enrollees after accounting for 10% loss-to-follow-up. We will modify the sample size target after 60 clusters, based on preliminary estimates of p0, ICC, and cluster size and consider switching to an alternative drug after interim analyses and as new data emerges. The primary analysis will be a generalized linear mixed model with logit link to estimate the effect of LPV/r on the probability of infection. Participants who test positive at baseline will be excluded from the primary analysis but will be maintained for additional analyses to examine the impact of LPV/r on early treatment.

DISCUSSION

Harnessing safe, existing drugs such as LPV/r as PEP could provide an important tool for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Novel aspects of our design include the ring-based prevention approach, and the incorporation of remote strategies for conducting study visits and biospecimen collection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04321174 ) on March 25, 2020.

Network meta-analysis of post-exposure prophylaxis randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

We performed a network meta-analysis of PEP randomized clinical trials to evaluate the best regimen.

METHODS

After MEDLINE/Pubmed search, studies were included if: (1) were randomized, (2) comparing at least 2 PEP three-drug regimens and, (3) reported completion rates or discontinuation at 28 days. Five studies with 1105 PEP initiations were included and compared ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) vs. atazanavir (ATV) (one study), cobicistat-boosted elvitegravir (EVG/c) (one study), raltegravir (RAL) (one study) or maraviroc (MVC) (two studies). We estimated the probability of each treatment of being the best based on the evaluation of five outcomes: PEP non-completion at day 28, PEP discontinuation due to adverse events, PEP switching due to any cause, lost to follow-up and adverse events.

RESULTS

Participants were mostly men who have sex with men (n = 832, 75%) with non-occupational exposure to HIV (89.86%). Four-hundred fifty-four (41%) participants failed to complete their PEP course for any reason. The Odds Ratio (OR) for PEP non-completion at day 28 in each antiretroviral compared to LPV/r was: ATV 0.95 (95% CI 0.58-1.56; EVG/c: OR 0.65 95% CI 0.30-1.37; RAL: OR 0.68 95% CI 0.41-1.13; and MVC: OR 0.69 95% CI 0.47-1.01. In addition, the rankogram showed that EVG/c had the highest probability of being the best treatment for the lowest rates in PEP non-completion at day 28, switching, lost to follow-up or adverse events and MVC for PEP discontinuations due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows the advantages of integrase inhibitors when used as PEP, particularly EVG as a Single-Tablet Regimen.

HIV transmission by human bite: a case report and review of the literature-implications for post-exposure prophylaxis

We report a case of a probable HIV-1 transmission by human bite. The analyzed data from ten previously reported  suspected or allegedly confirmed HIV transmissions revealed a deep bleeding bite wound as the primary risk factor. A high HIV plasma viral load and bleeding oral lesions are present most of the time during HIV transmission by bite. HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) should be recommended in case of a bleeding wound resulting from a bite of an HIV-infected person. PEP was missed in this presented case.

Tenofovir DF/emtricitabine/rilpivirine as HIV post-exposure prophylaxis: results from a multicentre prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Since 2016, French guidelines have recommended the single-tablet regimen of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC)/rilpivirine (RPV) as HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), but few data support this usage. We evaluated the tolerability, treatment completion and occurrence of HIV seroconversion associated with this combination in occupational and non-occupational PEP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted an observational, prospective, multicentre, open-label, non-randomized study in five French HIV centres. Adults requiring PEP according to national French guidelines were prescribed TDF/FTC/RPV one pill once a day for 28 days. Clinical and biological tolerability was assessed at week 4; occurrence of HIV seroconversion was evaluated after week 16.

RESULTS

From March 2016 to March 2017, 163 courses of PEP were prescribed for 150 sexual exposures (44% heterosexual and 56% MSM) and 13 non-sexual exposures. Five participants stopped PEP after a few days because the source person was HIV uninfected. Of the remaining 158 individuals, 15 (9.5%) were lost to follow-up at week 4, 7 (4.4%) prematurely discontinued PEP [patient's decision/non-adherence (n = 3) or adverse events (gastrointestinal intolerance n = 3, fatigue n = 1)] and 136 (86.1%) completed the 28 day treatment. Overall, 69.6% of participants declared at least one adverse event, mostly of mild to moderate intensity and no serious adverse events or hepatic or renal toxicity occurred. No HIV seroconversion occurred at week 16.

CONCLUSIONS

The low rate of premature treatment interruption, the good tolerability and the absence of documented HIV seroconversion support the current French guidelines of a 28 day course of TDF/FTC/RPV for sexual and non-sexual PEP.

[Occupational and non occupational exposure to viral risk]

The transmission of an infectious disease can occur through exposure to blood or other potentially infectious body fluids, particularly in the event of skin-puncture injuries for healthcare workers, and during sexual intercourse. These situations are known as accidental blood exposures and sexual exposures respectively. Combined actions carried out have allowed to significantly reduce risks, either to healthcare professionals (by standard precautions, provision of safety devices, Hepatitis B vaccination made compulsory in the 1990s, antiretroviral post-exposure prophylaxis that should be initiated as soon as possible after exposure), or to people engaging in unprotected sex (by prevention messages, condom promotion, and antiretroviral post-exposure prophylaxis). In any case, treatment of people infected by chronic diseases such as HBV or HIV, as well as possible drug eradication of HCV, are key for decreasing post-exposure risk of disease transmission. Post-exposure prophylaxis should be initiated as early as possible and intended for use only in patients with high-risk exposures. Knowledge of source person serostatus, information of exposed person on prevention, benefits and risks of treatment, and follow-up procedure are key points. Procedures to be followed in the event of an exposure must be known by all. Arrangements set up to allow risk assessment and management of exposed people rely on hospital services operating on a permanent basis.

To prescribe, or not to prescribe: decision making in HIV-1 post-exposure prophylaxis

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the trend in usage of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) after HIV-1 risk exposure and evaluated PEP prescription decision making of physicians according to guidelines.

METHODS

All PEP consultations from January 2014 to December 2016 in patients presenting at the University Hospital of Cologne (Germany) were retrospectively analysed. HIV risk contacts included sexual and occupational exposure. The European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) Guidelines for HIV PEP (version 9.0, 2017) were used for assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 649 patients presented at the emergency department (ED) or the clinic for infectious diseases (IDC) for PEP consultations. A continuous increase in the number of PEP requests was recorded: 189 in 2014, 208 in 2015 and 252 in 2016. PEP consultations in men who have sex with men (MSM) showed a remarkable increase in 2016 (2014, n = 96; 2015, n = 101; 2016, n = 152). Decisions taken by physicians with a specialization in infectious diseases (n = 547) included 61 (11%) guideline-discordant prescriptions [2014: 14% (n = 22); 2015: 9% (n = 16); 2016: 11% (n = 23)]. Among these, sexual exposure accounted for 45 (74%) cases, including 15 cases of nonconsensual sex, while occupational exposure accounted for 14 (23%) cases and other exposure two cases (3%). The main reason for guideline-discordant PEP prescriptions was emotional stress of the patient (n = 37/61).

CONCLUSIONS

PEP prescriptions are increasing and decision making is influenced by patients' emotional stress, but PEP prescriptions should be strictly administered according to risk assessment.

Randomized controlled trial of the tolerability and completion of maraviroc compared with Kaletra® in combination with Truvada® for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (MiPEP Trial)

Objectives

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV is often poorly tolerated and not completed. Alternative PEP regimens may improve adherence and completion, aiding HIV prevention. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a maraviroc-based PEP regimen compared with a standard-of-care regimen using ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.

Methods

Patients meeting criteria for PEP were randomized to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (200/245 mg) once daily plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (Kaletra ® 400/100 mg) or maraviroc 300 mg twice daily. The composite primary endpoint was completion of 28 days of the allocated PEP regimen without grade 3 or 4 clinical or laboratory adverse events (AEs) related to the PEP medication.

Results

Two hundred and thirteen individuals were randomized (107 to maraviroc; 106 to Kaletra ® arm). Follow-up rates were high in both groups. There was no difference in the primary endpoint; 70 (71%) in the maraviroc and 64 (65%) in the Kaletra ® arm ( P  =   0.36) completed PEP without grade 3 or 4 AEs. Discontinuation of PEP was the same (18%) in both groups. There were no grade 3 or 4 clinical AEs in either arm, but more grade 1 or 2 clinical AEs in the Kaletra ® arm (91% versus 70%; P  < 0.001). Antidiarrhoeal medication use was higher in the Kaletra ® arm (67% versus 25%; P  < 0.001). There were no HIV seroconversions in the study period.

Conclusions

The completion rate in the absence of grade 3 or 4 AEs was similar with both regimens. Maraviroc-based PEP was better tolerated, supporting its use as an option for non-occupational PEP.